To Every [ Defamation ] Action There Is Always Opposed An Equal Reaction–Isaac Newton.

At the time a lawyer was representing plaintiffs in an underlying action against defendants [the plaintiffs in the present action] for RICO violations [18 U.S.C. § 1961], the lawyer issued a press release captioned “FBI SAID TO BE INVESTIGATING GETFUGU’S CARL FREER,” the defendants his clients were suing. Later, the same lawyer issued the following Tweet: “GetFugu runs an organization for the benefit of its officers and directors, not shareholders and employees. The RICO suit was not frivolous. The 500K lawsuit is frivolous, however, so buyer be wary.” On the same day the district court dismissed the underlying RICO lawsuit, the present plaintiffs [former defendants] filed the instant action for malicious prosecution and defamation. The lawyer, his firm and other lawyers in the firm, were named as defendants. The lawyer defendants filed a special motion to strike the malicious prosecution/defamation action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which the trial court granted. Finding neither the press release nor the Tweet are shielded by the litigation privilege, and that the Tweet was merely nonactionable opinion, the appellate court affirmed in part but found plaintiffs met their burden to show their defamation claim against two of the attorneys and reversed in part. (Getfugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs LLP (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; October 3, 2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 141, [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 831].